Road Riporter 12.1 Spring Equinox 2007

Spring Equinox 2007. Volume 12 No. 1

Citizen Scientists Making Good Conducting a Successful Citizen Monitoring Program on the Clearwater National Forest By Anna Holden

Inside… A Look Down the Trail, by Bethanie Walder. Page 2 Conducting a Successful Citizen Monitoring Program on the Clearwater National Forest, by Anna Holden. Pages 3-5 Odes to Roads: Dipnets and the Devil’s Own Invention, by Susan Cerulean. Pages 6-7 Policy Primer: Stewardship End Result Contracting, by Carol Daly. Pages 8-9 DePaving the Way, by Bethanie Walder. Pages 10-11 Wildland CPR’s Annual Report. Pages 12-13 Get with the Program: Restoration, Transportation, & Science Updates. Pages 14-15 Citizen Spotlight: Karen Boeger and Dan Heinz, by Cathy Adams. Pages 16-17

Students from Kamiah Middle School, Leah York’s Ecology class: Photo by Anna Holden.

Biblio Notes: Beyond Vegetation Cover as a Measure of Restoration Success, by Sara Simmers. Pages 18-20 Regional Reports & Updates. Page 21 Around the Office, Membership Info. Pages 22-23

Student volunteers tracking animals. Photo by Anna Holden.

Photo by Adam Switalski.

Check out our website at: www. wildlandscpr.org

P.O. Box 7516 Missoula, MT 59807 (406) 543-9551 www.wildlandscpr.org

Change is in the air…

I

n late 2006, contemplating numerous opportunities to expand our work, Wildlands CPR underwent a strategic restructuring. Unlike corporate speak, this is not a euphemism for downsizing – we’re actually expanding, and we’re really excited about it! Not only are we expanding, but we redefined several existing jobs at Wildlands CPR, again, to take advantage of opportunities in both our restoration and transportation programs. The result is the following: We will now have the equivalent of four full-time staff working on off-road vehicles, and the equivalent of three full-time staff working in our restoration program.

Wildlands CPR works to protect and restore wildland ecosystems by preventing and removing roads and limiting motorized recreation. We are a national clearinghouse and network, providing citizens with tools and strategies to fight road construction, deter motorized recreation, and promote road removal and revegetation.

As we went to press, we were finishing the hiring process for two new “State ORV Coordinators,” based in Utah and Montana. There are six other State Coordinators, housed in six other organizations (in CO, CA, OR/WA, AZ/NM, ID, and NV). All of the state coordinators are responsible for working with grassroots activists, agencies and others to ensure the best possible travel plans as the Forest Service implements its 2005 travel planning rule. While we have implemented some very successful pilot projects “on-theground,” this will be the first time Wildlands CPR has dedicated staff to place-based work. So with our MT and UT coordinators we’ll engage in a new way, which will open up a series of challenges and opportunities for us.

Director Bethanie Walder

In addition to our State Coordinators, we have redefined our Transportation Policy Coordinator Position. Our new Legal Liaison/Agency Training Coordinator will be responsible for three key things: 1) coordinating the travel planning litigation of all eight State Coordinators; 2) developing a training program to provide agency staff with tools for implementing effective travel plans, and; 3) providing rapid response services to folks working on travel planning outside of the west, and also providing policy assistance on off-road vehicle issues not related to travel planning. Finally, we’ve created a new Communications Coordinator position at Wildlands CPR, which will be filled by Jason Kiely. Jason will be splitting his time 50-50 between our restoration and transportation programs. On the restoration side, he’ll be creating a “brand” around the concept of restoration, both within Montana and beyond. On the transportation side, he’ll be helping the State Coordinators with the media components of their campaigns. And over all, he’ll be helping Wildlands CPR get the word out about our good work. What does this mean, you might be wondering, for the Natural Trails and Waters Coalition? The Coalition will continue to provide travel planning and internal communications resources for activists working on travel planning (and Wildlands CPR will be coordinating this effort), but it will play a much less public role on these issues. The Wilderness Society will be assuming that public role, with the creation of a Recreation Planning Program. They’ll be coordinating the efforts of the State Coordinators, and providing national guidance on transportation planning. We’ll be working closely with them, including, as mentioned above, coordinating the litigation strategy and providing some communications resources. Here’s the bottom line: as of 2007, the conservation community has far greater capacity to address transportation planning on national forest lands, and Wildlands CPR has a significant portion of that increased capacity. With every national forest expecting to adopt a revised travel plan by 2010, this increased investment is critical, and we’re looking forward to taking full advantage of our new structure. Don’t hesitate to get in touch with us if you have any questions about this effort.

Development Director Tom Petersen Communications Coordinator Jason Kiely Restoration Program Coordinator Marnie Criley Science Coordinator Adam Switalski Legal Liaison/Agency Training Coordinator Sarah Peters Program Assistant Cathy Adams Montana State ORV Coordinator Adam Rissien Newsletter Dan Funsch Interns & Volunteers Mike Fiebig, Laura Harris, Noah Jackson, Andrea Manes, Gini Porter Board of Directors Amy Atwood, Greg Fishbein, Jim Furnish, William Geer, Dave Havlick, Rebecca Lloyd, Cara Nelson, Sonya Newenhouse, Patrick Parenteau Advisory Committee Jasper Carlton, Dave Foreman, Keith Hammer, Timothy Hermach, Marion Hourdequin, Kraig Klungness, Lorin Lindner, Andy Mahler, Robert McConnell, Stephanie Mills, Reed Noss, Michael Soulé, Steve Trombulak, Louisa Willcox, Bill Willers, Howie Wolke © 2007 Wildlands CPR

2

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007

Citizen Scientists Making Good Conducting a Successful Citizen Monitoring Program on the Clearwater National Forest By Anna Holden

Road Decommissioning on the Clearwater

I

n the winter of 1995-1996, right on schedule with predicted historical records, the Clearwater National Forest (ID) experienced a dramatic rain-on-snow event that caused extensive flooding and more than 900 landslides. Due to a legacy of logging and associated roading, some areas on the Clearwater had road densities as high as 40 miles per square mile. These roads were the cause of more than half of the 900 landslides in the region in ’95-’96, several of which literally carried area residents’ homes off the mountains. The Clearwater National Forest (CNF) responded quickly, acquiring emergency federal funds from Congress to begin an extensive road decommissioning program with the help of the Nez Perce Tribe (NPT). To date, the agency, in partnership with the tribe, has removed more than 600 miles of unused, unsafe and ecologically harmful roads. Road decommissioning on the CNF provides high-wage jobs for local contractors, whose work restores watershed integrity and reduces the likelihood and severity of future landslides. But not everyone understands either how road removal works, or why it is important. So the CNF conducted extensive outreach in the local communities to build understanding of and support for this form of watershed restoration. However, budget cutbacks in the Forest Service haven’t allowed the CNF or the NPT to conduct extensive monitoring on the decommissioned roads. In addition, there isn’t much peer-reviewed scientific research about the effects of road decommissioning on wildlife, vegetation or stream integrity.

Anna Holden in the field. Photo by Adam Switalski.

Wildlands CPR recognized both the extraordinary nature of the CNF/ NPT restoration program, and the importance of monitoring that work. In 2004 Wildlands CPR received a generous grant from the National Forest Foundation that enabled us to begin working with the CNF and NPT to expand their efforts by creating the first citizen monitoring program to focus on road removal as a key form of watershed restoration.

Extensive road building and logging through the 1980’s and 90’s left the Clearwater vulnerable to catastrophic erosion. Aerial photo at left shows excessive road densities (Wildlands CPR file photo). Photo at right shows a failed culvert (photo by Bill Haskins).

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007

— story continued on next page — 3

— Citizen Science, continued from page 2 —

What is Citizen Science? Citizen science is simply the incorporation of volunteers into the planning, data collection, or analysis of a scientific project. In addition to collecting data, there are many benefits of citizen science, both to the organization in charge and the communities involved. Organizations or agencies can reduce their resource costs, educate non-scientists, and begin to build trust between agencies, conservation organizations and citizens. Citizen scientists gain an understanding of the project and issues surrounding it, giving them the opportunity to be an educational source for other citizens in their community. Over time, citizen science projects can lead to far greater community understanding of natural resource management issues. The overall goals of Wildlands CPR’s monitoring project are twofold: to collect much needed data about the short and long-term effects of road removal as a watershed restoration tool, and to increase local community understanding of, and support for, watershed restoration. During the first year of the program, Katherine Court, a University of Montana graduate student, developed and tested research methods for citizen scientists to collect data on road removal. We also contracted with wildlife biologist Sue Townsend to develop some of our wildlife protocols, which include using remotely-triggered cameras to photograph large fauna in action, and baited track plates to collect the footprints of smaller critters (see Road RIPorter 10:2). In addition, we developed protocols for vegetation samples to identify noxious weed problems. For stream integrity, we developed macro-invertebrate sampling techniques and adopted the Wolman Pebble count to measure stream sediment (see Road RIPorter 9:4).

Organizing Citizen Scientists Once the protocols were completed and peer-reviewed, we began organizing local people to conduct the monitoring. We recruited individuals and groups of volunteers through meetings with local schools, conservation groups, and fishing organizations. I was hired last year to organize more citizen scientists for the project, specifically targeting the hard-to-recruit rural areas along Highway 12 in Idaho. Beginning in February of 2006, I taught high school classes in Orofino and Kamiah. In May, I took these students into the field and we conducted both wildlife and vegetative monitoring. The students were very enthusiastic and seemed happy to be doing something constructive and out of the classroom, especially when I tied the activities to their favorite local activities — hunting and fishing.

A curious moose is captured on film by one of the remote monitoring cameras.

our monitoring site in the Moscow area. Adrienne recruited her own volunteers and took groups into the field. The Clearwater Flycasters provided consistent volunteers from the Moscow and Troy areas — at last we had found a regular, dedicated group of volunteers. Cliff Swanson, a Clearwater Flycaster and return volunteer, understood the importance of participating in citizen science. “As a retired mathematics teacher it was exciting to see science and math used in a real world setting. It made me feel good to help with a project that will have an impact on future restoration practices.” Over the course of the 2006 field season 60 volunteers contributed more than 400 hours of monitoring on the CNF — the most volunteer hours yet! This brought our grand total of volunteers to 125 contributing nearly 1000 hours of time. In addition to adult volunteers, we collected data with students from Hellgate High in Missoula, Montana, Orofino and Kamiah High Schools in Idaho, and groups and individuals from the University of Montana, University of Idaho, and Washington State University in Pullman, WA.

I also presented to local fishing and conservation groups including the Three Rivers Chapter of Trout Unlimited, the Clearwater Flycasters, and Friends of the Clearwater. While not all presentations were met with enthusiasm, and some with downright skepticism, I did have some success. Friends of the Clearwater, based out of Moscow, Idaho, gave us the support of their student intern, Adrienne Boland, who Student volunteers found these tracks, left by a fisher took over using one of the decommissioned roads.

4

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007

Data Collection During our first full monitoring season in 2005, citizen scientists successfully recorded tracks or photos of bear, deer, elk, moose, squirrels, chipmunks, mice, and voles. They also sampled three streams and conducted vegetation samples on decommissioned roads. Katherine and Adam Switalski, Wildlands CPR’s Science Coordinator, presented these results and the project in general at the International Conference on Ecology and Transportation (ICOET) in San Diego, CA. Their poster presentation was well-received and generated interest from peers in the field of road ecology. In 2006, we engaged university students to help us with the data analysis. An undergraduate environmental studies class at the University of Montana, led by Dr. Vicki Watson, conducted the initial analysis of all of our 2006 monitoring data. The study design included three paired monitoring sites on open and decommissioned roads. The students found that bears are using decommissioned roads significantly more than open roads. While all our sites on decommissioned roads captured photos of bears, remotely triggered cameras on open roads found none. Our monitoring is the first study to show with statistical significance that road decommissioning is restoring bear habitat. On the Palouse Ranger District, we had a different study design and were testing whether the distance from an open road affected wildlife use. We found six bears 1 mile from the open road, three bears 2/3 mile from the open road, and no bears 1/3 mile from the road. This is a very important finding as it appears that more bears use decommissioned roads as there is an increased level of security (i.e., further from an open road). A management implication may be that decommissioning several small road spurs is not as effective for protecting bears as decommissioning one longer road section.

“As a retired mathematics teacher it was exciting to see science and math used in a real world setting. It made me feel good to help with a project that will have an impact on future restoration practices.” — Cliff Swanson, volunteer

Next Steps Over the last three years the program has adapted to increase its effectiveness. Due to the success of the classroom lessons and field day, Wildlands CPR has expanded our school-based efforts for 2007, hiring Mike Fiebig to work exclusively with schools in rural Idaho. In Missoula and Moscow, we have hired AmeriCorps volunteers to organize at farmers markets, volunteer fairs, and other events. We have added field sites to increase our sample size and the scientific strength of the study. We have also expanded our citizen monitoring to the Swan Valley (MT) and are seeking funding with the Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project to create another citizen monitoring program in Colorado.

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007

Decommissioned roads are not only used by wildlife — they offer access for quiet recreation. Photo taken by remote monitoring camera.

We have been accepted to present our results at next year’s Ecological Society of America / Society for Ecological Restoration’s joint meeting in San Jose, CA. We have also been accepted for presentation at this year’s International Conference on Ecology and Transportation (ICOET) in Little Rock, AR this summer. In addition, we have plans to present this work to members of the communities surrounding the CNF.

Conclusion Collecting information on the benefits of road removal will help support continued road removal efforts undertaken by the Forest Service and Nez Perce Tribe. Moreover, it will also help build community support for this critical form of watershed restoration. As our project trains new citizen scientists and takes them into the field, many will likely be inspired to help protect and restore the Clearwater’s forested landscapes. My role as project leader has been rewarded by new friendships, joyful memories, and the knowledge that our efforts are making a difference. We expect to build upon our successes through the program, while rebuilding the ecological integrity of the Clearwater.

— Anna Holden is an Environmental Studies graduate student at the University of Montana. She was raised in Logan, Utah, by passionate outdoor enthusiasts who showed her that the answer to most questions could be found in nature.

5

Dipnets and the Devil’s Own Invention By Susan Cerulean Editor’s note: This is a condensed version of an essay that appears in our book: “A Road Runs Through It.”

F

or nearly forty years, renowned Tallahassee herpetologist Dr. Bruce Means has seined and dipnetted and cataloged the vertebrate life of more than 266 unique, ephemeral ponds that dot this landscape just south of Tallahassee. Rare and threatened amphibians, including the striped newt and the gopher frog (both designated candidates as federally threatened species), have struck an evolutionary deal with the ponds’ ever-changing water levels, which can include going bone-dry for several years at a stretch. These animals and quite a few others actually depend on periodic dry-downs to eliminate fish and other aquatic predators from the ponds. In addition, at least ten of Florida’s twenty-seven species of native frogs utilize temporary ponds almost exclusively — four in the very coldest time of the winter and six in the summer months. But Bruce Means has told me that illegal off-road motoring continues to threaten the very existence of the newts and salamanders and frogs that live here. The U.S. Forest Service rules allow motor vehicles only on established trails within the national forest. Resource damage, which includes driving in or near ponds, is prohibited. When I met with Means in his tiny Tallahassee office, he ran through a set of slides he took of a single pond during the last nine years. The first slide showed an undisturbed wetland, so thickly vegetated that I couldn’t really tell where the forest stopped and the pond began. “There was very little off-highway vehicle use of the sandhills in the national forest when I began my study,” said Means. “But all of sudden, about six years ago, boom. Here comes all these OHVs. Precipitously.” He told me that what protected the Apalachicola National Forest up until that point was unlimited public access to the commercial paper company lands to the east. In 1998, those private roads were gated and posted by hunting clubs, which had leased the hunting rights and now excluded trespassers. It was the Forest that took the overflow of displaced OHV riders. “And it’s the very ponds the rarest animals live in that these idiots have been destroying with their mudbogging and joyriding activity!” he said. The last slide in his series showed a forty-or fifty-foot swath of muddy destruction around the perimeter of the sampling pond. I don’t need further convincing; it’s clear that very little could survive in that war zone. “What’s really scary is the way these guys love to motor around and around these ponds, totally destroying the littoral vegetation, the underpinning of the whole system,” said Means.

6

An intact ephemeral pond. Photo by Susan Cerulean.

•

•

•

•

The first pond I visit this morning looks more like a grassy bowl than a wetland. The standing water at the center is less than eight feet across and a mere four inches deep. It’s so small I can almost encircle it with my arms. But the surface of the water thrums with life. Each pass of my net yields a scattering of dragonfly nymphs and a dozen tadpoles with bronze robust bellies and delicately marbled tails. I wish I knew their names. My field guide only illustrates the adult frogs, doesn’t distinguish between the tadpoles. As I kneel by the tiny wetland, I can clearly see its seasonal range of movement between the tall pines and arching oaks at its perimeter to this remnant pool at the center. I think about the dissolution of subsurface limestone that caused the ground to slump and create this mild saucer. In other places, where the ground sinks too much and dips into the underground aquifer, I remember Means saying, a permanent water body will be formed, creating an entirely different environment. ..... I get back on my bike and continue deeper into the forest. There’s a big pond on my left, and I push my bike through the palmetto understory to the water’s edge. I see deer tracks in the sand, and one white egret, and a turtle strok-

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007

ing off through the grasses. This pond is much bigger than the previous two—must be five or more acres--and it’s ringed with a sandy beach that sparkles with shattered bits of green and brown beer bottles. ..... But what appears to be a perfectly natural sand beach encircling this pond and so many others in the forest is an artifact, I realize, of past OHV traffic and a goodly number of parties. As beautiful as they might seem, they are actually scars in the once-continuous sandhill fabric. Vehicle tires have destroyed the vegetation that grew here and ground down ruts that trap and kill newts, salamanders and their larvae as the ponds seasonally recede. The wide, sandy trails remain desertlike barriers for the tiny newts and other rare creatures attempting to move between pond and forest, as they must, to complete their intricate life cycles. “These sand rings should not exist,” says Bruce Means. In March 2004, in response to documentation of the damage to sandhill ponds on the forest provided by Means and the Friends of the Apalachicola, the U.S. Forest Service closed about 6,500 acres to off-road vehicles. A story with a happy ending, right? Scientist shares lifework, persuades federal administrators to permanently protect sensitive areas, isn’t that how it works? Unfortunately, and unbelievably — given what’s at risk — the closure is most likely only temporary. Although the Forest Service’s plan for the national forests in Florida changed access for motorized vehicles and bicycles by prohibiting cross-country travel, and established a few restricted areas where travel will be limited to designated roads and trails only, we are still awaiting a final access decision that designates a system of roads and trails within the restricted areas. The document is four years late and appears to be in the hands of Forest Service recreation planners with close ties to the OHV community, rather than the biologists and natural resource specialists who ought to be laying out the needs of the forest’s sensitive species as an immutable baseline from which all other decisions should be made. “In the meantime,” says Walter Tschinkel, another longtime forest researcher and president of the Friends of the Apalachicola National Forest, “the temporary restricted area closures and the ban against cross-country travel are violated right and left, and with only two law enforcement officials on the whole 500,000-acre forest, the riders grow more confident and brazen every day. I think these machines are the devil’s own invention.” ..... There’s another solution than trail designation that some land managers believe could mitigate this problem of trying to integrate off-road vehicles into an ecosytem, at least somewhat. “What we’re looking at now are lands that can be basically dedicated or sacrificed for this use, like former phosphate mines,” says the state wildlife agency’s Jerrie Lindsey. “Teneroc Fish Management Area near Lakeland is a good example — a reclaimed phosphate mine that is never going to be a pristine pine forest again. What you see down there are pines with waving stands of invasive cogan grass underneath. It would cost billions to restore it for other uses. It just might be the place for off-road riders.” Lindsey and her colleagues in governmental agencies know that pretending this problem is going to go away will never work. “Pandora’s box has been opened,” she says. “If we don’t try to help, then we’re part of the problem.” I just can hardly stand the thought of sacrificing any of our Apalachicola as an off-road playground, and I say so to Chuck Hess, a former wildlife biologist with the forest. He tells me, “If you don’t let them into the forest at all, you lose supporters for natural areas. You’ve got to pick an area that’s already trashed. You’ve got to give it to these guys. You’ve got to set up areas to do it in and eliminate it everywhere else. I just don’t think

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007

Repeated off road vehicle use has turned this pond into a desert of sand. Photo by Susan Cerulean.

the concept of trail systems is going to work. You’d have to count on the people who use the trails to behave responsibly. It’s not enforceable; unless we issue draconian threats and hire twenty times the present law enforcement personnel, we don’t have a chance.” Pretty grim prospects. Given that OHVs are designed to trammel the landscape; given that the number of riders has far outgrown law enforcement capabilities of public land agencies; given that the Bush administration is not only loosening protective regulations, cowing its employees, and gutting their budgets, but attempting to rewrite their very mission statements. I wonder if we as a culture will have to let this one play itself out to its sorrowful, sorry conclusion, just as we are with the automobile. I think back to my last visit to Bruce Means’ tiny second-floor Coastal Plains Institute in a funky, unassuming downtown neighborhood. Hurricane Katrina was just bearing down on New Orleans, her fringes bending the trees outside the windows while we talked. As we paged through reports and images of the habitats and creatures he’s come to know so intimately, Bruce’s lifework seemed as vulnerable and essential as one of his beloved ephemeral ponds. I looked at the tiny rooms honeycombed with white shelving, the carefully arranged libraries and data collections, the hundreds and hundreds of boxed slide carousels. All on behalf of rattlesnakes, newts, gopher frogs and salamanders, and why? “They’ve had the same evolutionary run on the planet that we’ve had,” says Means. “We owe them everything we can do.” Reprinted (in abbreviated form) by author’s permission, all rights reserved. — Susan Cerulean is the director of the Red Hills Writers Project and a writer, naturalist, and activist living in Florida. Her latest book is a nature memoir, entitled Tracking Desire: A Journey After Swallow-tailed Kites.

7

Stewardship End Result Contracting By Carol Daly

Background

Experimental projects using some of the concepts now incorporated in stewardship end result contracting were conducted sporadically on federal lands beginning in the late 1970’s. Broad interest in the idea, however, did not develop until the mid-1990’s, when community-based forestry groups in the West started looking at it as a possible way to reduce the contentious nature of public lands management. They wanted to encourage diverse stakeholders to collaborate in planning and monitoring restoration projects that would be carried out by contractors who focused on “what was left, not what was removed” from the forest. Some regional Forest Service managers also were advocating for stewardship contracting, seeing advantages both in the flexibility it offered and in potential improvement of operational effectiveness.

Purpose

Value-added products made by local manufacturer from small diameter trees removed on Clearwater Stewardshsip Project, Lolo NF, MT. Photo by Carol Daly.

Stand-alone legislation to establish a new demonstration program failed to generate widespread interest in Congress, so in 1998 some of the initiative’s supporters in the Senate attached it as a rider to an appropriations bill funding on-going government programs. Section 347 authorized the Forest Service to implement a limited number of “stewardship end result contracting” demonstration projects. Five years later, Congress lifted stewardship contracting’s demonstration status, removed the cap on the number of projects, and empowered the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to also use the new tool. That legislation is effective through September 30, 2013. For the full text of the legislation and related Forest Service implementation guidance: http://www.fs.fed.us/forestmanagement/ projects/stewardship/direction/index.shtml. There is a link to the BLM stewardship site as well. The law provides that stewardship contracting be used by the agencies “to achieve land management goals…that meet local and rural community needs,” and that such goals “may include, among other things -1. road and trail maintenance or obliteration to restore or maintain water quality; 2. soil productivity, habitat for wildlife and fisheries, or other resource values; 3. setting of prescribed fires to improve the composition, structure, condition, and health of stands or to improve wildlife habitat; 4. removing vegetation or other activities to promote healthy forest stands, reduce fire hazards or achieve other land management objectives; 5. watershed restoration and maintenance; 6. restoration and maintenance of wildlife and fish habitat; and 7. control of noxious and exotic weeds and reestablishing native plant species.”

Special authorities

The Forest Service Handbook says “the intent of stewardship contracting is to accomplish resource management with a focus on restoration,” and echoes the legislative proviso that “deriving revenue from the sale of products designated for removal through stewardship contracting projects is a secondary objective to achieving land management goals.”

Stewardship contracting projects must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and all other laws and regulations applicable to the management of National Forest System and BLM lands.

8

Stewardship contracting provides special authorities for the agencies to use in pursuing their management goals. These include: • Best value contracting – Rather than awarding a contract solely on the basis of price (as with conventional timber sales), agencies can consider both price and non-price factors (such as the contractor’s past performance, key employees’ qualifications, and planned utilization of local workforce). “Best value” is the standard that must be used in awarding all stewardship contracts or agreements. • Goods for services – The agencies can exchange goods (timber or other forest products such as biomass and forage) for services rendered by a contractor in doing restoration work in the project area. • Residual receipts – If the value of the product removed through a stewardship contract exceeds the cost of the services provided by the contractor, the agencies may keep the excess revenue and use it for additional restoration. If the excess receipts are not used on the same project, but made available for transfer to another, they become “retained receipts.” • Multi-year contracting – Stewardship contracts or agreements may have terms up to 10 years.

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007

Collaboration

Although the word “collaboration” does not appear in the authorizing legislation for stewardship contracting, broad and meaningful participation in planning, implementing, and monitoring projects is intrinsic. Collaboration can increase understanding and trust, and bring a broader range of knowledge and experience to bear on the achievement of shared goals for restoration. Agency personnel are encouraged to participate in but not lead collaborative groups. Collaborative efforts supplement but do not replace existing NEPA-required public involvement processes. Collaborative groups offer ideas and recommend where and how stewardship projects should be implemented, but federal agencies retain decision making authority.

Multiparty Monitoring

During the demonstration phase, the Forest Service was required to establish a “multiparty monitoring and evaluation process” that assessed each of the 84 pilots. They contracted with the Pinchot Institute for Conservation (PIC), who from 1999-2004 worked with local, regional, and national monitoring teams to analyze information from the demonstrations. The Forest Service then prepared annual reports to Congress addressing: 1. The status of development, execution, and administration of stewardship contracts; 2. Specific accomplishments that resulted; 3. The role of local communities in the development of those agreements and plans. The 2003 legislation eliminated the requirement for project level monitoring. The agencies now collect data on items #1 and #2 from all projects, and contract with PIC to address item #3. Regional multiparty teams are still facilitated by PIC. Project level teams are discretionary, although managers are encouraged to provide for them when there is local support. The Forest Service allows retained receipts to be used to complete project level process monitoring.

Contracts and agreements

Stewardship projects may be implemented through either contracts or agreements with private contractors, non-profit organizations, and tribal, state, and local government entities. The Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004 additionally authorizes the Forest Service and BLM to give “special consideration” to tribally-proposed stewardship contracting projects on federal lands bordering tribal trust lands. Until recently, few agreements had been used to implement stewardship projects, but in December 2006 the BLM and the Forest Service signed 10-year challenge cost-share agreements with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation for cooperative efforts to enhance and restore wildlife habitat on thousands of acres in Montana and Wyoming.

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007

Using stewardship contracting

Many of the demonstration projects took advantage of stewardship contracting’s special authorities to “bundle” a variety of management activities in a project area – stand improvement, stream restoration, road improvement or removal, noxious weed treatment, habitat enhancement, etc. But priorities have shifted, and most new stewardship projects are now aimed solely or primarily at reducing wildfire risks in the wildland urban interface (WUI). Such projects usually involve removing large quantities of small, low- or no-value woody material, and – barring a readily accessible biomass market – the “goods” value Thinning in campground area, Paint often isn’t sufficient to pay for the Emery Stewardship Project, Flathead “service” of removing it, let alone National Forest, MT. Photo by Carol Daly. cover the cost of other restoration. There is an “up” side to the current stewardship/fuels pairing. Work in the WUI is often less contentious than projects farther from populated areas, and can provide a good starting place for community collaboration.

Issues to be Resolved

1. Bonding. It is difficult for non-profits, communities, quasi-governmental organizations, and small contractors to meet the stringent bonding requirements for contracting with the Forest Service and BLM. With fewer bonding companies willing to issue bonds for forest work – particularly for non-harvest related activities with which they are unfamiliar – even some established contractors have a hard time obtaining coverage. 2. Payments to counties. Last year’s expiration of the Craig-Wyden “county payments” bill sounded an alarm for counties that had foregone receipt of their traditional “25% fund” payments (25% of the value of federal timber sales from within their counties) in order to receive annual payments based on an average of previous receipts. Stewardship contracting is exempt from making 25% payments from revenues it generates, and if the county payments bill is not reauthorized and funded, local government resistance to more stewardship contracting is likely.

Conclusion

There is growing support for a greater emphasis on and more investment in forest ecosystem restoration. To many, that is the job for which stewardship contracting should be a valuable tool – with its focus on end results, its use of best value in selecting contractors, its capacity to incorporate multiple activities over longer time frames and broader landscapes, and its ability to capture revenues as a by-product of the restoration work to help offset project costs. Moving on to multi-faceted restoration projects, however, will require that agencies and other stakeholders develop a greater familiarity with the full suite of stewardship contracting’s special authorities and a willingness to use them to best advantage. Appropriate training and technical assistance will be essential. Agency personnel and contractors both will have to learn new ways of doing business, overcoming individual reluctance, and sometimes institutional barriers, to change. — Carol Daly is president of the Flathead Economic Policy Center, Columbia Falls, Montana, and has been engaged in regional and national multiparty monitoring of stewardship contracting projects since 1999. She is the author of the “Best Value and Stewardship Contracting Guidebook, recently published by Sustainable Northwest.

9

Keep Your ORVs Out Of My Roadless Areas! By Bethanie Walder

It

was 1998, and the Forest Service had just decided to develop a plan for managing their national road system. They also decided, concurrently, to create a plan for managing and protecting roadless areas. We were encouraged, albeit a bit skeptical, that the Forest Service was finally ready to get serious about roads and roadless areas. Recognizing an opportunity to address several transportation-related problems at once, Wildlands CPR met with the Forest Service, and also with many conservation organizations “inside the beltway,” to push for addressing off-road vehicle problems within the context of these two management initiatives. Now, nearly ten years later, and following numerous policy reversals and shifts, we’re still worried that the Forest Service could allow off-road vehicle damage, and particularly the continued proliferation of user-created routes, to go unchecked in roadless areas.

Background

Back then, while many agreed that off-road vehicles were a problem, very few, including those in charge at the Forest Service, wanted to address offroad vehicles at the same time they considered roadless protection and road management. Their plate was full, they said, and they would address off-road vehicles once these other management issues were complete. To their credit, they did, and in November 2005, the Forest Service adopted a national rule for managing off-road vehicles as well. Ironically, by that time, the 2001 roadless rule had been rendered moot and replaced by a new roadless rule from the Bush Administration.

Incredible as it may seem, the Forest Service could add these usercreated, renegade, unauthorized roads to its authorized system as “trails.”

Then, in September 2006 the courts reinstated the 2001 roadless rule. So we now have two administrative rules that potentially give us the tools to curb off-road vehicles. The thing is that the two rules use different definitions and different terminology: they intersect, but they don’t necessarily overlap. While the roadless rule is “the law of the land” for roadless areas (barring any court action that could once again nullify it), the 2005 off-road vehicle rule applies everywhere else, and in some contexts, it applies to roadless areas, too.

Lake Alice Roadless Area, Wyoming. Threatened by proposed road construction. Photo courtesy of Wild Utah Project.

10

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007

The Devil’s in the Details

With the reinstatement of the 2001 rule, there was a collective sigh of relief. But we may need to keep holding our breath regarding off-road vehicle use in roadless areas. The 2001 roadless rule states that roads cannot be constructed into roadless areas, but it lists seven exceptions. These exceptions generally cover public health and safety; existing treaty or other statutory rights; pollution cleanup; realignment of needed roads that are causing unacceptable damage; development of Federal Aid Highway projects; or the continuation, extension or renewal of a mineral lease. While these exceptions may give us heartburn in some cases, the greater concern is that the 2001 roadless rule technically does not prevent off-road vehicle recreation in roadless areas. This loophole is now combining with the 2005 off-road vehicle rule to create what may be a perfect storm. The 2005 rule requires all national forests to undergo a travel planning process, and it includes roadless areas within this process. So how will the Forest Service apply travel planning in roadless areas? According to the 2005 rule, such use can be allowed only on designated routes or in discrete designated areas, but just what does constitute a “designated route?” Enter semantics… The Forest Service defines a road as follows: “A motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless identified and managed as a trail.” This definition does not include unauthorized roads (“unclassified roads” under the 2001 definitions) — many of which are found in roadless lands and were created by off-road vehicle users repeatedly traveling the same path. As the Forest Service engages in travel planning, they will have to decide whether or not to add these unauthorized roads to their “authorized” travel system. To do so, they should be required to undergo site-specific environmental analysis to determine whether or not these roads are causing harm. Furthermore, to add these roads to the authorized system in inventoried roadless areas, the roads should have to meet one of the exceptions defined above. But an end run around these sensible demands is possible: if the Forest Service adds these user-created routes to the system as something other than “roads.”

When is a Road a Trail?

Incredible as it may seem, the Forest Service could add these user-created, renegade, unauthorized roads to its authorized system as “trails.” Should this happen, the protections of the roadless rule cease to apply. Wildlands CPR has long argued with the Forest Service over this fatal flaw in their definition of a road. If there is a travelway on the ground, and it looks, feels and functions like a road (with all of the associated impacts of a road), then the Forest Service should address it as a road and manage it as such. If they were to classify these travelways as roads, then most of them could not legally be designated as open

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007

HD Mountain Roadless Area, Colorado. Site of proposed Coal Bed Methane Project. Photo Source: www.savehdmountains.org

under the protections of the 2001 roadless rule. But if they classify them as system trails, then the routes are suddenly allowed in roadless areas. To allow this is simply unacceptable. We raised these concerns with the Forest Service way back in 1997. We raised these concerns with the Forest Service all through the development of the 2005 off-road vehicle regulations. But the Forest Service loves discretion. And with that discretion comes the option to circumvent the protections of the 2001 roadless rule by simply reclassifying “unauthorized roads” as “system trails.”

Where To Go From Here?

It would be a travesty if neither the 2001 roadless rule nor the 2005 off-road vehicle could prevent such reclassifications or designations. The end result would be profoundly diminished roadless values in the affected roadless areas. Let’s be clear — we do not recommend that these routes be designated as roads. To do so simply rewards bad behavior and encourages off-road vehicles users to develop ever more user-created, renegade routes, especially in roadless areas. These routes’ impacts were never analyzed by the agency, and they have received no maintenance other than repeated travel by four-wheel drive vehicles. A responsible, fair-minded agency would simply decide not to authorize any user-created routes… but that’s not very likely. Now that the Forest Service is dramatically ramping up its travel planning schedule, it’s time for conservationists, quiet recreationists, and all others who care about the fate of roadless areas to insist that off-road vehicle use NOT be allowed in roadless areas. Off-road vehicle recreation is inconsistent with everything that roadless areas stand for.

11

2006 Annual Report Wow!

2006 was a big year for Wildlands CPR, filled with new projects and transitions — all of which have created new opportunities for us in 2007.

Restoration Program

The highlight of our restoration work in 2006 was co-sponsoring (with the MT AFL-CIO) the Montana Governor’s Restoration Summit, held in June in Billings and attended by over 300 business and industry leaders, tribal representatives, university faculty, labor representatives, conservationists, watershed council members, and others. We helped the Governor’s staff design the agenda, and by the end participants had adopted numerous recommendations for investing in restoration (and therefore economic development). The Governor took many of these and crafted a legislative package for investing $7 million in restoration in 2007-08. Shortly after the conference, we convened a follow-up meeting, which morphed into a growing coalition to promote such investment in restoration and revitalization, calling itself “Restore Montana.” Adam expanded our citizen-science monitoring on Idaho’s Clearwater National Forest. Anna Holden joined the project through the University of Montana and increased the participation of rural Idaho residents, especially by engaging more schools. Friends of the Clearwater in Moscow, Idaho helped coordinate volunteers. Adam analyzed data with an ecology class at the University of Montana, and found statistically significant results on black bears’ use of decommissioned roads. In addition, we started a new citizen science project on the Flathead National Forest in partnership with Northwest Connections, a rural citizens’ advocacy group. In addition to our work on restoration economics and citizen science, we teamed up with university professors (UC-Davis; CU-Denver; Redlands Institute) to lead a GIS training for agency staff to help them set priorities for road decommissioning and maintenance during travel planning. In addition, Marnie pulled together two other agency trainings on road removal programs (Albuquerque, NM and Portland, OR). More than 100 agency staff attended these three workshops.

Kenai Refuge, Alaska. Photo by Steve Hillebrand, courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

12

Transportation Program/NTWC

In 2006, we partnered with the Natural Trails and Waters Coalition and grassroots groups to deliver a series of workshops for conservationists, quiet recreationists, off-road vehicle users and agency staff on the ins and outs of “authentic” collaboration. We held workshops in seven western states (CA, CO, AZ, NM, UT, OR, MT), with nearly 200 people attending. Jason Kiely, on loan from Wildlands CPR to NTWC, coordinated these workshops with some assistance from Tim Peterson, our Transportation Policy Coordinator. Staff from the Institute for Environmental Negotiation at the University of Virginia developed the curricula. With the Forest Service considering collaboration as a major tool for transportation planning, the workshops helped agency staff and local stakeholders understand what good collaboration looks like. In addition to these and other citizen workshops, we provided $22,000 in minigrant support to grassroots organizations working on monitoring and travel planning throughout the west. We also developed several new resources for activists. For example, Adam partnered with the Wild Utah Project to create a set of off-road vehicle Best Management Practices, which are now undergoing peer review and will be published in 2007. These BMPs will provide strong guidelines for off-road vehicle management in those places where the agency determines such use is appropriate. In addition, Executive Director Bethanie Walder oversaw development of a new report on strategies for enforcing off-road vehicle restrictions. The report will be out soon and is based on interviews with more than 50 activists and agency staff about successful models to enhance enforcement on limited budgets.

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007

These resources are critical for addressing travel planning nationwide. In addition to new resources, we’re also coordinating with The Wilderness Society’s new Recreation Planning Program to increase grassroots capacity on travel planning. At the end of 2006 we received funding for three new positions as part of this effort: one to assist with travel planning litigation throughout the west; and two to develop programs in Utah and Montana to ensure the most protective travel plans possible. In addition, Wildlands CPR will continue to provide electronic and networking resources through the NTWC campaign room. As a result of these changes, Jason Kiely shifted to a new role as our Communications Coordinator beginning in 2007. In addition, Tim Peterson left Wildlands CPR in December 2006 for a position with Great Old Broads for Wilderness.

A Road Runs Through It…

In 2006, we worked with Johnson Books to publish a literary anthology, “A Road Runs Through It.” The book was the result of years of work by our Development Director Tom Petersen, who edited the project, and who coordinates the “Odes to Roads” essays in our newsletter. The book is an extraordinary collection about roads, off-road vehicles and restoration. We were also fortunate to have Wildlands CPR member Annie Proulx write the Foreword to the book. In its first few months, even before the first reviews, we sold nearly 2000 copies (including 400 that Wildlands CPR bought to distribute to decision-makers and the media). We’re looking forward to increased sales and more reviews over the next few months.

Fundraising

Wildlands CPR was funded by the following foundations in 2006: 444S, Brainerd, Bullitt, Cinnabar, Firedoll, Harder, LaSalle Adams, Lazar, Maki, National Forest Foundation, New Land, Norcross, Page, Patagonia, and Weeden Foundations. We also raised nearly $70,000 in private contributions.

Conclusion

It was an exciting, productive, successful, cutting-edge, and especially fun year to be working at Wildlands CPR. With huge advances in both our Restoration and Transportation programs, we set the stage for even greater accomplishments in 2007!

2006 Financial Report Income: $ 594,258.41

Other* (4%)

Grant Income (73%) *

Contributions, Membership & Workplace Giving (13%)

Contract Income (10%)

Other includes Interest Income, Reimbursed Income, Sales and Miscellaneous Income

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007

Expenses: $499,891.02 Transportation Policy (23%)

Natural Trails & Waters Coalition (23%)

Restoration (32%)

Administration & Fundraising Organizational (10%) Development (13%)

• NOTE: These income and expenditure charts do not reflect in-kind contributions.

13

Transportation Program/NTWC

A

s of January 1, Jason began his new role as Communications Coordinator for Wildlands CPR. By elevating the frequency and effectiveness of how Wildlands CPR communicates with the media, Jason will help us attract broad support for protecting and restoring public lands from the scars left by unmanaged off-road vehicle use and unnecessary roads. While a full transition from his duties as forest campaign coordinator for the Natural Trails & Waters Coalition (NTWC) will take up to six months, opportunities to broadcast Wildlands CPR’s values and goals are already coming out of the woodwork. For instance, check out the half-hour interview that Jason did with Pacifica Radio-Houston (found at www.kpft.org) and a shorter interview with the Great Lakes Radio Consortium on a controversial off-road vehicle mega-route proposal (found at www.glrc.org). Jason’s communications focus will aid Wildlands CPR’s restoration program by building a diverse network of leaders representing business and industry, labor and sportsmen, state universities and conservation. This group calls itself “Restore Montana” and is founded on the belief that increased support for and coordination of restoration projects will create green-collar jobs and add value to damaged public lands and waters. Jason recently organized the last three in a series of eight briefings on messaging produced for NTWC and Wildlands CPR by Resource Media. Their recommendations are helping Wildlands CPR and the broader conservation community frame the off-road vehicle debate in a more productive and inclusive way. We’ve already seen these messages effectively applied in letters to the editor in several states. In December, NTWC delivered the final two workshops on “effective collaboration” led by the University of Virginia’s Institute for Environmental Negotiations. Jason organized an over-sold workshop in Missoula and provided support for a workshop held in Bend, Oregon that was hosted by the Sierra Club. Some of the most critical outcomes were summarized by one of our partner organizations: • Relationship building with conservationists, agency planners, off-roaders, and potential allies (backcountry horsemen, anglers, hunters); • Breaking down misconceptions of conservationist and motorized recreationists’ goals and tactics; • Providing a legitimate outside source to set a standard for what is authentic collaboration among a cross-section of interests and agency staff;

Better answer that — Jason’s calling!

Jason has also finalized an outreach effort to organizations that are obvious candidates for membership in NTWC. Membership benefits include access to the NTWC online, membersonly campaign room that contains valuable information and serves as a portal to NTWC listserves. As of January 4, 149 organizations are members of the coalition; we communicate with 311 individuals affiliated with these organizations. From among this organizational membership, 160 individuals representing 85 organizations have asked for and been granted access to the campaign room and listserves.

In order to make the workshops as useful as possible, NTWC partnered with in-state conservation organizations to serve as co-hosts. In written evaluations from the mix of 165 stakeholders who participated, the workshop was rated at 8.4 on a 10-point scale! This project will replace a culvert and improve fish passage — part of the Clearwater Stewardship Project, Lolo National Forest, MT. Photo by Carol Daly.

14

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007

Restoration Program Update

T

here is a lot of exciting restoration policy work going on in Montana, so this update will focus on Wildlands CPR’s piece of the puzzle. Wildlands CPR recently helped start a collaborative group called Restore Montana, a network of leaders from Montana’s restoration economy that works for community renewal and natural resource restoration. Restore Montana’s “members” to date include conservation groups, restoration businesses, and labor interests. This ad hoc group continues to work closely with Montana Governor Schweitzer’s office to secure more state money for restoration work. Restore Montana hopes to be a public and policy voice for the businesses and workforce that make ecological restoration and community revitalization happen. Another new but promising effort is the formation of a collaborative working group to focus on restoration efforts on Montana’s national forests. Marnie is the chair of the Vision and Principles Subcommittee. The goal of this subcommittee is to develop consensus recommendations for the overall Working Group, concerning both broad vision and specific priorities to help guide national forest restoration activities in Montana to achieve ecological, economic, and social health and sustainability. It is our hope that these principles can help lead to comprehensive national forest restoration projects that include road removal as a key component. Sungnome Madrone from Humboldt County, California, Jim Burchfield, Associate Dean of the University of Montana’s College of Forestry and Conservation, and Marnie spoke at the Bitterroot Economic Development District (BREDD) meeting at the end of last year. In attendance were approximately 30 county commissioners and economic development folks from several western Montana counties. We had a good response from a very diverse audience and we are already following up on this meeting: Jim Burchfield will be speaking to BREDD’s RedevelopCollaborative approaches have replaced much of the dissention over land management. Photo by Carol Daly. ment working group about Restore Montana. Our Science Coordinator, Adam Switalski, continues to organize the Clearwater Citizen Monitoring Program. Last fall, Field Organizer Anna Holden took a group of students into the field to collect data on open and decommissioned roads. Then, after deep snow prevented further monitoring, Anna and Adam worked with a University of Montana ecology class to analyze the data. Their analysis found that bears used decommissioned roads significantly more than open roads (see cover story). This is quite exciting as it is the first study to document that bears are using decommissioned roads.

ESA/SER Organized Oral Session Wildlands CPR and the UC Davis Road Ecology Center have put together an Organized Oral Session on road removal at the Ecological Society of America / Society for Ecological Restoration conference this August in San Jose, CA. The session will synthesize the current state of knowledge of road removal as a form of ecological restoration across landscape, watershed, and site-level spatial scales, and propose directions for future interdisciplinary research. For a list of speakers and more information see: http://eco.confex.com/ eco/2007/techprogram/S1522.HTM

Bull Trout, Flathead National Forest Adam co-authored a research paper on road removal and bull trout on the Flathead National Forest (MT) with Lisa Eby and Magnus McCaffery from the University of Montana. The manuscript was officially accepted as a “Note” in the Transactions of the American Fisheries Society and is to be published this spring.

Information Requests Adam responded to requests for information on off-road vehicles in New Mexico (from a concerned citizen), road avoidance zones (from Center for Biological Diversity), road removal (from BARK), bear research (from the University of Kentucky), and road density conversions (from the Forest Service).

We are also preparing for next year’s monitoring. Mike Fiebig, our new Environmental Educator, has been talking to high school teachers in rural Idaho schools about teaching about restoration in their classrooms. Mike presented at the Watershed Education Training (WET) workshop in Kamiah High School (ID), attended by teachers from schools across the region. Mike discussed the restoration work occurring in their backyards on the Clearwater and showed them the methods Wildlands CPR is using to monitor road removal on the ground. Mike found several interested teachers and plans on taking classes into the field this spring to conduct citizen monitoring.

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007

15

The Citizen Spotlight shares the stories of some of the awesome activists and organizations we work with, both as a tribute to them and as a way of highlighting successful strategies and lessons learned. Please e-mail your nomination for the Citizen Spotlight to [email protected].

Citizen Spotlight on Karen Boeger and Dan Heinz By Cathy Adams

F

or a couple who claims to be retired, one quickly learns that Karen Boeger and Dan Heinz define retirement as being retired from their professional goals, not their passionate ones. They are too busy fighting tooth and claw to keep off-road vehicles out of Nevada’s once quiet, wild places to slow down. Karen grew up in a farming community in California where her family hiked, fished and hunted in the nearby Sierra Mountains. In the early 1970’s she moved to Reno, Nevada to raise her children and teach. She educated kids from preschool to middle school, from remedial reading groups to gifted children. She started getting involved in off-road vehicle issues about 30 years ago when she began witnessing “takings” of previously roadless wild areas and wildlife habitat at an alarming rate. Off-road vehicles were creating renegade routes across Nevada’s landscape, taking advantage of its wide open, treeless terrain. Unsure of where to begin to help stop this abuse, Karen began attending local Sierra Club meetings, became Chair of the Wilderness Committee, and hosted meetings at her home. She was also a founding member of Earth First! “back when it was a therapy group for disillusioned wilderness activists,” as she describes it. In 1988 when Nevada began working on its first statewide Wilderness bill, Karen helped found Friends of Nevada Wilderness, and has been on their Board ever since. Dan grew up in Colorado Springs, Colorado where, as a teen, he was first exposed to off-road vehicle’s on a backpacking trip with a friend into

what was to become the Lost Creek Wilderness. “We were headed to a stream to do some fishing. It took us two days to get there, but when we arrived we found a jeep that had beat us!” That unpleasant encounter stuck with Dan throughout his career and into retirement. He takes on inappropriate off-road vehicle use at every opportunity. Dan’s love of the outdoors led him to a career with the US Forest Service. He “retired” in 1983 and immediately volunteered in Butte, Montana for the National Wildlife Federation. He went on to help found American Wildlands in Bozeman, and served on boards for the Montana Wilderness Association, Greater Yellowstone Coalition and Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics. As a volunteer, Dan worked mainly on grazing and logging issues, but also on the impacts of off-road vehicle’s. Dan and Karen met in the old DC Sierra Club office. Now married, they share their passion for activism while living beyond the grid in a remote spot north of Reno in the Pahrah Range, which Karen says has been “a great problem solving activity.” Over the last ten years, the two have spent their spare time working on their sustainable home, which includes solar power, a wind generator, and a hydroelectric system that they installed themselves. They manage their email and computer work out of their home and travel around the state to attend meetings and political activities. “We wear a lot of different hats,” Karen admits. The latest success the couple shared was preventing legislation that mandated hundreds of miles of off-road vehicle trails across an eastern Nevada county. A “Silver State OHV Trail” was to be attached to the White Pine County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2006. The trail was projected to connect with a vast network of trails across the state; trails had already been established in adjacent Lincoln County through a similar bill, and White Pine was next on the list.

16

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007

Dan and Karen, opposing the trail provision, were told by the state’s delegation that the trail was a done deal and nothing could be done to stop it. “I thought ‘whoa, if we can’t stop the trail in this county, it will be mandated and established in every county without public review or an opportunity to decide it is a bad idea” Karen recalls. She and Dan kept the debate alive and, with crucial help from a state wildlife biologist and concerned residents, convinced the County Commissioners to pass a resolution against the trail, requesting that the route designation go through an administrative instead of a legislative process. This would assure public involvement, an environmental study, and a chance to halt the off-road vehicle mega-route from impacting Nevada’s traditional public land values. The legislative process simply mandated the trail. “Luckily we had a visionary set of Commissioners who had known us from our years of involvement in other issues. We also had an atmosphere of folks here who wanted to do something about irresponsible off-road vehicle use,” Karen says. The delegation reacted by putting pressure on the Commissioners to rescind the resolution. In response, Karen and Dan worked around the clock to gather supporting resolutions, and got them from the Nevada Game Commission, the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, the Nevada Farm Bureau, the (very conservative) Nevada Coalition for Wildlife, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, and the National and Nevada Wildlife Federations. “We are usually on opposite sides of issues with many of these organizations, but this was an issue we had in common and our many years of involvement bought us credibility,” according to Karen. “We purposely did not seek sign-on by typically “green” organizations; rather we sought to build up a big coalition of ‘red meat organizations’ to urge the Congressional delegation not to legislate this trail. So at the end of the day when the bill was introduced, the trail was not mandated.” The bill’s final language greatly restricts the trail mileage that can be considered, and it requires the agencies to complete a three-year NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) study to make sure the trail doesn’t significantly impact wildlife, natural and cultural resources or traditional uses. “It was a major win,” says Karen, “it gives all citizens, the Department of Wildlife and other cooperating agencies a chance to give critical input.” We believe no off-road vehicle trail can be located without creating very significant impacts to some if not all of these key resources. Karen and Dan attribute their success to the groundwork they had laid working on other issues in rural counties. When it came time to approach conservative organizations about off-road vehicles, people were willing to sign on because a level of credibility, trust and respect had been established.

Proposed High Schells Wilderness, eastern White Pine County (near Ely, NV). Photo by Pete Dronkers.

Dan says environmentalists should also be skeptical when an agency says they have no money to do something. Speaking from his long experience as an agency land manager he says, “too often that is a bureaucratic dodge. There are few unit managers out there that can’t do a far better job with the money they already have.” Karen and Dan find inspiration for their work in the outdoors. Karen recognizes the wide-open and wild spaces of her youth are quickly disappearing. As a result she realizes her kids didn’t have the opportunities she did and fears her grandkids will have even less. Her passion is to save wild areas from the “takings” of renegade routes. For Dan, every trail he sees desecrating a mountainside is enough to keep him going. He says we need to establish a bottom line for all activities nationally: “we are okay with a system of touring routes for off-road vehicle’s established on existing roads, but we should not agree to legalize one inch of renegade routes. Under no circumstances should we agree to any motor sports, play areas or hill climbing routes on public lands. We will not score 100% every time, but we will achieve far more by striving toward such a goal.”

Dan and Karen say the experience solidified their belief that environmentalists have to “hang tough” and be resilient when facing down threats to the environment. Dan says all too often enviros mistake good feelings with success. “When you meet with people and everyone leaves feeling good you may think you gained something. Most often reality is that you, and the American public you are representing, have been had. Visionary public land decisions just cannot be made without disturbing someone’s interest. Be courteous-always, but soft-never.” Dan also recommends talking to off-road vehicle supporters at every opportunity in order to better understand their positions. We must always listen with humility. No matter how right our position may be, it just may be that the off-road vehicle users are also right about something. It’s better to hear it earlier from your opponent so you can strengthen your case before any talks begin, he says.

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007

Taken in the proposed Highland Ridge Wilderness, southeastern White Pine County. Photo by Pete Dronkers.

17

Bibliography Notes summarizes and highlights some of the scientific literature in our 10,000 citation bibliography on the physical and ecological effects of roads and off-road vehicles. We offer bibliographic searches to help activists access important biological research relevant to roads. We keep copies of most articles cited in Bibliography Notes in our office library.

Beyond Vegetation Cover as a Measure of Restoration Success Long Term Patterns on Removed Grassland Roads By Sara Simmers

P

icture a restored road halfway overgrown with vegetation. Most of us involved in restoration would generally see this vegetative cover as a good thing. It is a sign that something is able to grow on the once disturbed and compacted soil. Erosion is held in check, minus some bare spots here and there. Wildlife are likely beginning to use some of the plants for cover and food. As for the plant community itself, we expect that successional processes will eventually result in a diverse array of desired plant species. However, if we take a closer look at the plant community, we may find more to the long-term story.

Grassland Road Removal

Curiosity about such a story led me to restoration ecology research in western North Dakota. Since about the 1950’s – when oil and natural gas exploration began in this part of the Great Plains – varying degrees of well site and access road removal have been attempted in an effort to reverse the impacts of drilling activities on native grasslands. Public lands have the tightest regulations, and currently road removal on those lands involves removing surface materials, recontouring the soil to match the surroundings, and planting a seed mix of 3-7 grassland species (USDI and USDA 2006).

Study Design

Road restored in 1995. Dominated by the native species western wheatgrass (Agropyron smithii) and green needlegrass (Stipa viridula). Photo by Sara Simmers.

18

For my study, I took a closer look at the plant communities of 58 of these removed access roads in the oilfields of the Little Missouri National Grasslands (LMNG). The roads I selected were decommissioned 3 to 22 years ago, and my goal was to answer 3 main questions: Which species were planted during restoration? How do these species compare to the vegetation currently growing on the restored

Oil well site on Little Missouri National Grasslands. Photo by Sara Simmers.

roadbed? And finally, how is the plant community on the restored roadbed similar to or different from undisturbed vegetation adjacent to the old roadway? The answers to these questions, along with more traditional vegetative cover assessments, can give us a better idea of whether these restoration practices are leading to long-term recovery. So to answer them, I trekked across the rugged and rolling prairie of the LMNG to sample plots that I set up on and along the 58 study roads, recording all plant species that I observed. I also did a fair amount of detective work to retrieve records of seeding for these roads.

Findings

My main finding was that, in general, the species that were planted on the removed roads were still the most abundant (Simmers 2006). When I incorporated time into the analysis, accounting for the length of time since restoration, I found that this pattern held. Even on the oldest restorations, which would have had the most time for surrounding species to colonize, the species observed were very much like the seed mixes. This finding could be a positive one, particularly if the species that were planted are desired components of the restoration, i.e. native species also dominant in surrounding, undisturbed vegetation. However, I found that the seed

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007

mixtures used in the older restorations contained non-native forage species, transitioning to native grasses and forbs for the more recent decommissionings (Simmers 2006). Both old and new mixtures Road restored in 1992. Dominated by nonwere low in diversity native intermediate wheatgrass (Agropyron (averaging 5 species per intermedium). Photo by Sara Simmers. mix) and mis-matched the adjacent plant community, even if composed of native species. Numerous species common in the surrounding vegetation were either absent or present infrequently and at low cover on the removed roads. The result: linear corridors of a very different species assemblage compared to the surrounding matrix of native grassland – and a pattern that remains even after 20 years.

Discussion

One explanation for this finding is simply that this system needs more time to recover from such a disturbance. After all, the climate of the Great Plains is harsh, with dramatic swings in precipitation and temperature within and among years. Other research indicates that both natural successional processes and revegetation after human disturbances can be slowed by such a climate (Burke et al. 1998, Bakker et al. 2003). However, my results suggest that restoration choices and practices could also be contributing to the lag in recovery. More specifically, recovery may be hindered due to characteristics of seeded species and/or due to insufficiently ameliorated soil conditions. Evidence for the first of these explanations is found in the persistence and dominance of seeded species, whether non-native or native. Other work in the Great Plains has shown that many of the non-native species traditionally used for revegetation projects have competitive advantages over local native species and tend to spread from initial introductions (Wilson 1989, Bakker and Wilson 2001, Bakker and Wilson 2004). Not unexpectedly, I found evidence that several non-native, seeded species were spreading, such as crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum), smooth brome grass (Bromus inermis), and yellow sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis). Yet the availability, dependability, and vigor of these species make them hard to pass up when soil stabilization and vegetative cover are needed quickly. Incorporating native species might be a solution to this problem. Indeed, as my study demonstrated, native cultivars can be just as competitive as their non-native counterparts if selected for traits like fast growth or high seed production. Unresolved soil problems may also be a factor in this story. By taking several exploratory soil cores, I found evidence of compaction within the top 10 cm of the restored roadbeds. Mechanically ripping the roadbeds during the recontouring process is not routinely implemented during road removal in the LMNG. Compaction can physically affect the germination or root establishment of plants (McSweeney and Jansen 1984, Bell et al. 1994). I found another indication of soil problems: a greater abundance of salt-tolerant species on roads compared to adjacent prairie. This means that salts and carbonates are likely brought to the surface during recontouring and could affect the growth of salt-intolerant species.

Conclusion

As suggested by my findings, problems stemming from restoration choices can ultimately be detrimental to longer-term goals such as the re-assembly of the native plant community. The spread of non-native species can be prolonged rather than reversed, and the conservation of locally adapted native species can be affected by genetic contamination from restoration seeding. Soil problems could further delay recovery. Evaluating restorations by vegetative cover only would fail to detect issues such as these. Because roads are so pervasive, poor choices during their restoration can further degrade otherwise intact ecosystems, resulting in more harm than good. My study indicates that several restoration details would be worth investing in if long term recovery of the ecosystem is desired: seeding with locally collected or locally produced native seeds (or non-aggressive native cultivars); broadening the number of species used in mixes when the adjacent plant community is slow to colonize; and adequately preparing the soil before seeding. It is not enough to assume that any restoration project will benefit wildlands and natural areas. We must continue to closely evaluate both positive and negative consequences of road removal practices and implement changes accordingly. — Sara recently received an M.S. degree in Conservation Biology from the University of Minnesota – Twin Cities. She is currently employed with Western Plains Consulting, Inc. in Bismarck, North Dakota as an Environmental Scientist/Ecologist.

Road restored in 1986. Dominated by non-native crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum). Photo by Sara Simmers.

— references on next page —

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007

19

— continued from previous page —

References Aubry, C., R. Shoal, and V. Erickson. 2005. Grass cultivars: their origins, development, and use on national forests and grasslands in the Pacific Northwest. USDA Forest Service. Bakker, J., and S. Wilson. 2001. Competitive abilities of introduced and native grasses. Plant Ecology 157:117-125. Bakker, J. D., and S. D. Wilson. 2004. Using ecological restoration to constrain biological invasion. Journal of Applied Ecology 41:1058-1064. Bakker, J. D., S. D. Wilson, J. M. Christian, X. Li, L. G. Ambrose, and J. Waddington. 2003. Contingency of grassland restoration on year, site, and competition from introduced grasses. Ecological Applications 13:137-153. Bell, J. C., R. L. Cunningham, and C. T. Anthony. 1994. Morphological characteristics of reconstructed prime farmland soils in western Pennsylvania. Journal of Environmental Quality 23:515-520. Burke, I. C., W. K. Lauenroth, M. A. Vinton, P. B. Hook, R. H. Kelly, H. E. Epstein, M. R. Aguiar, M. D. Robles, M. O. Aguilera, K. L. Murphy, and R. A. Gill. 1998. Plant-soil interactions in temperate grasslands. Biogeochemistry 42:121-143. Hammermeister, A. M., M. A. Naeth, J. J. Schoenau, and V. O. Biederbeck. 2003. Soil and plant response to wellsite rehabilitation on native prairie in southeastern Alberta, Canada. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 83:507-519. McSweeney, K., and I. J. Jansen. 1984. Soil structure and associated rooting behavior in minespoils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 48:607-612. Rogers, D. L. 2004. Genetic erosion: no longer just an agricultural issue. Native Plants Journal 5:112-122. Simmers, S. 2006. Recovery of semi-arid grassland on recontoured and revegetated oil access roads. MS Thesis. University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN. USDI, and USDA. 2006. US Department of the Interior and US Department of Agriculture. Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development. BLM/WO/ST-06/021+3071. Bureau of Land Management. Denver, CO. 84 pp. Wilson, S. D. 1989. The suppression of native prairie by alien species introduced for revegetation. Landscape and Urban Planning 17:113-119.

20

Idaho Roadless Update In November 2006, the Roadless Area Conservation National Advisory Committee (RACNAC) was brewing for a fight with outgoing Idaho Governor Jim Risch. He had submitted a roadless petition to the committee that would have allowed significant development and road construction in the bulk of Idaho’s 9 million roadless acres. This was the first petition submitted under the Administrative Procedures Act, after the 2001 Roadless Rule was reinstated by federal court in September 2006 (see RIPorter 11-4). To everyone’s surprise, Governor Risch did an about face at the RACNAC meeting. While his petition supported development, he argued for protecting 3 million acres with no exceptions for road construction (the 2001 roadless rule includes seven exceptions). In addition, the Governor recommended that 5.5 million acres be protected under the guidelines of the 2001 rule (allowing those exceptions). Risch did also request that 500,000 acres of roadless land be open to development. On December 22, Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns accepted Idaho’s revised petition, as presented at the November meeting. The Forest Service will now develop a memorandum of understanding with the state for completing an environmental impact analysis to put the state’s recommended changes into the national forest management plans. It is unclear how long this will take. The majority of the 500,000 acres that would be exempt from protection (and moved into general forest management) are in the Caribou-Targhee National Forest. The Forest Service is considering limiting the NEPA analysis solely to these 500,000 acres, and conservationists are working to identify their wildlife values. There are ongoing debates over whether an Environmental Impact Statement, or a less comprehensive Environmental Analysis will be completed. Idaho Conservation League and Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Project (TRCP) are heavily engaged in this process and will be working to ensure that those 500,000 acres receive the strongest possible protections. During the roadless petition process, for example, TRCP contacted 1,032 hunters and anglers, 67 conservation organizations and 21 businesses in Idaho. While many expected that Idaho was one of the targets for roadless exploitation under the Bush roadless rule, the tables have turned, and Idaho is now likely to have some of the most protected roadless lands in the nation. Idaho now has a new governor, but with his actions, then-Governor Risch created a legacy of roadless protection – one that hunters, anglers, conservationists, birders, and the wildlife itself, will thank him for, for generations to come. — Special thanks to William Geer from Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership for the information used in this alert.

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007

Gallatin Travel Plan Released On December 8, 2006, the Gallatin National Forest released the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for its Travel Management Plan, determining where and how people recreate on the forest for the next 15-20 years. Most conservationists see the plan as a mixed bag: while the agency tackled the issue of travel planning, on the whole they missed the mark. The Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Montana Wilderness Association, and The Wilderness Society filed a joint administrative appeal focusing on management of places like the Hyalite-Porcupine-Buffalo Horn Wilderness Study Area (WSA), Lionhead Recommended Wilderness Area, Cabin Creek Recreation and Wildlife Management Area, and the Crazy Mountains, as well as grizzly bear habitat and elk security standards. Of particular concern, the WSA (known as the Gallatin Range) continues to be threatened by motorized use. In 1977, Congress designated the Gallatin Range a Wilderness Study Area to maintain its wilderness potential. Allowing snowmobiles, motorcycles and mountain bikes violates the intent of the 1977 act and impacts the potential for future wilderness designation.

Hikers in the Gallatin range. Photo by Cathy Weeden.

Likewise, the Cabin Creek Recreation and Wildlife Management Area, south of the Gallatin Range, was designated by Congress for “the protection and propagation of wildlife.” And yet, the travel plan allows unlimited year-round snowmobile use in Cabin Creek, which would cause impacts to grizzly bears and wolverine. Failing a negotiated resolution, the appeal will be considered by the Northern Regional office. For more information contact: Patricia Dowd, Greater Yellowstone Coalition, [email protected] Quiet recreation, wintertime. Photo by Jim Earl.

Legal Victory In February 2007, the US District Court in Colorado ruled in favor of a 2001 Forest Service decision to close several motorized routes on the Medicine Bow - Routt National Forest. The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVC) argued that the Forest Service had violated the Administrative Procedures Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest Management Act by closing two motorized trails to off-road vehicles as part of a larger decision to restrict off-road vehicles to designated routes only. The Wilderness Society, Rocky Mountain Recreation Initiative, Colorado Mountain Club and Colorado Wild all intervened on behalf of the Forest Service’s decision. Attorney Mike Chiropolos of Western Resource Advocates argued the case on behalf of the intervenors. Rocky Mountain Recreation appealed the initial Radial Mountain decision, and in response to their appeal the Forest Service closed a 5 mile motorized loop trail that had first been allowed. After the appeal process, COHVCO brought their litigation. One of the trails in question included a scenic alpine stretch of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail. In his conclusion, Judge Daniel stated, “Despite COHVC’s numerous and indiscriminate arguments, COHVC has failed to demonstrate any basis for setting aside the two relevant USFS decisions.” Cases like this are important to intervene in to make good law, support good agency decisions, ensure against back-room settlements, and ensure that hard-fought wins in the planning process don’t get reversed in the courts.

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007

Labor - Conservation Alliance Formed The Washington Post recently reported (January 16, 2007) on a new alliance between the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP) and a group of 20 labor unions. Calling itself the Union Sportsman’s Alliance, the group says its goal is to protect wildlife habitat and preserve access for hunting and fishing. The groups worked for nearly three years to establish the relationship. Of particular concern to them are plans to open up more lands in the Rocky Mountains to oil and gas exploration. According to one poll, 70 percent of union members hunt and fish — but many belong to the National Rifle Association (NRA). Union leaders say they are concerned about the NRA’s anti-labor positions and close association with the Bush administration and Republican Party, and they hope this new alliance will help balance the NRA’s influence.

21

I

t’s been a very busy winter here at Wildlands CPR, mostly taken up with some significant staff changes. As we mentioned in the last issue, Tim Peterson has moved on to a new position with Great Old Broads for Wilderness. In the meantime, we’ve been deep in a hiring frenzy, not only for his position, but for two other new positions. While we haven’t filled them all yet, we do want to introduce you to two new staff members. A big welcome to Sarah Peters, our new Legal Liaison. Sarah finished law school at the University of Oregon last spring, and has been working as a law clerk in Eugene, OR. We’re thrilled to have Sarah on board, where she’ll be working with Wildlands CPR’s two new State ORV Coordinators (as well as six other Coordinators in the west) as they consider litigation on Forest Service travel plans. Sarah will also be helping Wildlands CPR develop a travel planning training program for agency staff. Our goal, after all, is not litigation, but getting the best possible travel plans out of these travel planning processes. Speaking of new State Coordinators, we’re equally excited to welcome Adam Rissien to Wildlands CPR’s staff as our new Montana State ORV Coordinator. Adam will be working with grassroots organizations and citizens to prioritize MT travel planning processes for engagement. He’ll be helping develop local campaigns to stop off-road vehicle abuse. Adam finished his M.S. in Environmental Studies at the University of Montana last year, where he wrote his thesis on wildland restoration, and where he helped us develop our MT restoration agenda. He’s also worked on off-road vehicle monitoring for years, so he brings a well-rounded background to our organization. Most recently, he’s been working as the Wyoming Associate Regional Representative for the Sierra Club. We’re still in the midst of the hiring process for the UT ORV Coordinator, so keep your eye on our website for information about that position. We’re also happy to welcome Laurel Hagan, in Moab, who is working on a report about the Paiute Trail for us. In addition, Andrea Manes has joined us as an intern, where she’ll be helping us, finally, get our photo library on line. In addition to all these new folks, we’d like to extend a huge thank you to the 444S Foundation, for making it possible to hire new state coordinators in Utah and Montana. And thanks to the National Forest Foundation and LaSalle Adams Fund for continued funding for two of our restoration projects. Many thanks too, to all of you who made year-end contributions to our annual gifts campaign – we raised almost $30,000 through the campaign!

22

Photo by John D’Anna.

You’re Invited! Quiet Commotion Summit 2007 MAY 4-6, 2007 Hotel Colorado, Glenwood Springs, CO The Quiet Commotion Summit 2007, hosted by the Southern Rockies Conservation Alliance, will bring together traditional quiet recreationists such as hikers, skiers, mountain bikers, bird watchers, hunters and anglers, as well as national and local experts, to discuss with the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management the recreation future of our Southern Rockies public lands. The conference will address how we can protect and enhance the world class natural and recreation heritage contained in the public lands of Colorado and Southern Wyoming and provide for long term, sustainable access. Our goal is to open a dialogue with agency staff on how to achieve quiet recreation opportunities in a network of connected, sustainable ecosystems, watersheds, and quality wildlife habitat areas. Panel discussions and presentations will include: travel planning using GIS data; auditory resource management using “Soundscapes” analysis; quiet use landscape visions and benefits; travel and recreation management techniques and methodology; agency collaboration and partnerships; and highlighting model travel plans.

Please Join Us! For more information contact:

Richard Huck, 720-436-6061 / [email protected] Aaron Clark, 303-324-7031 / [email protected]

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007

Join Wildlands CPR Today!

We’ve made joining Wildlands CPR easier — and more effective — than ever before. Please consider making a monthly pledge!

Consider the advantages of our Monthly Giving Program • Reducing Overhead

• Making Your Gift Easier

Monthly giving puts your contribution directly into action and reduces our administrative costs. The savings go to restoring wildlands and building a more effective network.

Say goodbye to renewal letters! Your credit card or bank statement will contain a record of each gift; we will also send a year-end tax receipt for your records.

• Our Promise To You You maintain complete control over your donation. To change or cancel your gift at any time, just write or give us a call.

Name Phone Street Email

City, State, Zip

Type of Membership:

Individual/Family

Organization

Business

Organization/Business Name (if applicable)

Payment Option #1: Credit Card Pledge

$10/Month (minimum)

$20/Month

Payment Option #2: Electronic Funds Transfer from Checking Account other

Charge my: ___ Visa ___ MasterCard ___ American Express Credit Card Number: _________________________________

$5/Month

$10/Month

$20/Month

other

I/we authorize Wildlands CPR to deduct the amount indicated above from my checking account once per month.

Signature

CSC Number: ________________ *(see below) Expiration date: _____________________________ Signature: __________________________________________ * The Card Security Code (CSC) is usually a 3 - or 4 - digit number, which is not part of the credit card number. The CSC is typically printed on the back of a credit card (usually in the signature field).

Thank you for your support! The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007

Please include a voided check. All information will be kept confidential. Transfers will be processed on the first Friday of each month, or the following business day should that Friday be a bank holiday.

NOTE: If you would prefer to make an annual membership donation ($30 standard membership, or more), please visit our website (www.wildlandscpr.org) or send your check to the address below. Please send this form and your payment option to: Wildlands CPR • P.O. Box 7516 • Missoula, Montana 59807 23

Ground-truthing Project, Cleveland Roadless Area, Alaska. Site of proposed Emerald Bay Timber Sale. Photo courtesy of Sitka Conservation Society.

Non-profit Organization US POSTAGE PAID MISSOULA MT, 59801 PERMIT NO. 569

“If we do not fix our roads we will have to drink our roads — after they slide down into our streams.” — Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA), February 2007, in response to a proposed 31% road maintenance budget cut by the Forest Service in FY 2008.

The Road-RIPorter is printed on 100% post-consumer recycled, process chlorine-free bleached paper with soy-based ink.